Greg Prince - Homosexual Policy and Church Fallout

[CA Steve]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But surely "dispassionate reasoning" and analysis should play some part in our lives?

Thanks,

-Smac

I could sit down with my wife and give her many  logical reasons why I think the Book of Mormon is a 19th century production. I could present her a complete analysis why I think the Book of Abraham is not a translation some papyri that fell into the hands of Jospeh Smith. In the end she would just shake her head and tell me she knows they are scripture because she simply believes it to be so.

As the saying goes,

You can't reason someone out of something, he or she wasn't reasoned into.

 

I know when I look at my gay family members, friends and co workers, that this policy is wrong. If that is an emotional reaction, I am okay with it.

 

Edited October 25, 2017 by CA Steve

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And yet only one side is saying "Hey, this is a hard thing.  But let's exercise faith and go with the Lord's prophets and apostles on this."

The other side is saying . . . well, something quite different.

A test of faith being administered by whom?

So listening to prophets and apostles = "failing the test {of faith}"?

Everyone's entitled to an opinion, I suppose.  But this one doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Thanks,

-Smac

The test is to exemplify the timeless principles of morality, which I believe are articulated in the central message of the gospel.  Its not administered by anyone, its part of the test of humanity and our journey to either elevate, lift, transform, even save the human family, or to fall prey to baser instincts, selfishness, pride, fear, and death.  

Its very hard, no mistake, it requires discipline and humility and a commitment to learning and following the truth, especially when new truths are discovered which may require a reorientation of our old paradigms.  

[carbon dioxide]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Well this is confusing.  If homosexual issues are rarely talked about in church, why would having gay parents be that big of issue.  Think about this for a second.  The importance of baptism is talked about a lot in the church.  The importance of the priesthood is talked about a lot in the church.  Passing the sacrament for a 12 year old happens every single week.  The importance of priesthood duties and why it is such a blessing to hold the priesthood is a weekly message.  So just how much of a conflict do you think it would be for a young adult growing up, knowing weekly that they are unworthy of any of this because their parents are gay.  .Do you get my point?

Lots of issues are not talked about in the church a lot.  I think homosexual issues have been talked about too much.  I am sort of tired of hearing about it in general conference.  I think it is well established in the church that gay relationships and the gospel are not compatible.  I don't think the GA has to keep reminding us that the church is still against it.  Time for the church to move on to other issues.

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I could sit down with my wife and give her many  logical reasons why I think the Book of Mormon is a 19th century production. I could present her a complete analysis why I think the Book of Abraham is not a translation some papyri that fell into the hands of Jospeh Smith. In the end she would just shake her head and tell me she knows they are scripture because she simply believes it to be so.

As the saying goes,

You can't reason someone out of something, he or she wasn't reasoned into.

I know when I look at my gay family members, friends and co workers, that this policy is wrong. If that is an emotional reaction, I am okay with it.

I think I understand your conclusion, and the mechanism you used to reach it.  I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I could sit down with my wife and give her many  logical reasons why I think the Book of Mormon is a 19th century production. I could present her a complete analysis why I think the Book of Abraham is not a translation some papyri that fell into the hands of Jospeh Smith. In the end she would just shake her head and tell me she knows they are scripture because she simply believes it to be so.

As the saying goes,

You can't reason someone out of something, he or she wasn't reasoned into.

 

I know when I look at my gay family members, friends and co workers, that this policy is wrong. If that is an emotional reaction, I am okay with it.

 

I think good moral positions can always be defended clearly and persuasively (with internal consistency), however morality is ultimately subjective, so it's always going to come down to subjective personal values.

[carbon dioxide]

I don't know how many people have fallen away from the church over gay issues and I really don't care.  People have to plant their flags and let the consequences follow.  If someone decides the eternal rewards of the Church are not that important to them as compared to advocating gay issues, that is their choice.  We worry too much about numbers in the Church.   The Church can actually be stronger and healthier with fewer members.  We can compromise standards to maximize the number of baptisms and members but what would be the point in the end if that compromise leads the bulk of those numbers to hell anyway.

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I don't know how many people have fallen away from the church over gay issues and I really don't care.  People have to plant their flags and let the consequences follow.  If someone decides the eternal rewards of the Church are not that important to them as compared to advocating gay issues, that is their choice.  We worry too much about numbers in the Church.   The Church can actually be stronger and healthier with fewer members.  We can compromise standards to maximize the number of baptisms and members but what would be the point in the end if that compromise leads the bulk of those numbers to hell anyway.

I can't decide if this is Orwellian or Zen.

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The test is to exemplify the timeless principles of morality, which I believe are articulated in the central message of the gospel.  Its not administered by anyone, its part of the test of humanity and our journey to either elevate, lift, transform, even save the human family, or to fall prey to baser instincts, selfishness, pride, fear, and death.  

Its very hard, no mistake, it requires discipline and humility and a commitment to learning and following the truth, especially when new truths are discovered which may require a reorientation of our old paradigms.  

Okay.

For me, "the test" comes across in a very different way.  Who is being tested, and with what objective in mind, and in what ways, and who is doing the administering . . . all of that comes across in a very, very different way to me.

I have no "old paradigms" to reorient as to the issue of children of same-sex couples getting baptized.  I had not given the matter much, if any, thought prior to November 2015.  But then the policy change came.  And a lot of vitriol with it.  Against men whom I trust to be good and decent, and experienced in seeking and obtaining revelatory guidance from God.  And then the vitriol continued.  And continues to this day.  And it calls for Latter-day Saints to pre-suppose certain things that are (or, in my mind, should be) pretty hard to pre-suppose.

There is an old legal maxim: "Hard cases make bad law."  Essentially, "{t}he phrase means that an extreme case is a poor basis for a general law that would cover a wider range of less extreme cases."  A legal scholar,  Glanville Williams questioned this adage's usage in 1957, writing, "It used to be said that 'hard cases make bad law'—a proposition that our less pedantic age regards as doubtful. What is certain is that cases in which the moral indignation of the judge is aroused frequently make bad law."

I think the Brethren are looking at this policy issue in a "general law" kind of way, while participants here are looking at this issue in a "I personally know someone who has been adversely affected by this policy, therefore the policy is bad" kind of way.  In other words, I see a lot of "moral indignation" about the policy, but not a lot of leveled, civil, dispassionate reasoning about it.  But I'm in the process of reviewing additional resources, so that assessment may change.

At present, I remain convinced that most of the "hurt" stems not from the policy itself (which has fairly narrow application), but from public backlash and overwrought rhetoric about the policy.  By way of evidence, I point - again - to the remarkable lack of popular "moral indignation" regarding the Church's longstanding and nearly-identical policy as to children from polygamous families.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I think Bobbieaware hit it on the head: to avoid conflict, the church would prefer that children of gay parents not attend meetings.

yep

[smac97]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

I don't know how many people have fallen away from the church over gay issues and I really don't care. 

I think we need to care.  They are our brothers and sisters.  We ought to be concerned about their welfare, and that of their families and friends.  Just look at this thread.  There are all sorts of people being affected by "gay issues" who are, at most, tangentially affected by the policy change, but who are very distressed nonetheless.

Quote

People have to plant their flags and let the consequences follow. 

But where people "plant their flags" matters.  And many folks in the Church are facing a cacophony of voices with varied and contradictory input on where to plant.  

I think the voices of prophets and apostles need to be a part of that mix.

Quote

If someone decides the eternal rewards of the Church are not that important to them as compared to advocating gay issues, that is their choice. 

But we cannot just wave them off, surely?  They can also change their minds.

Quote

We worry too much about numbers in the Church.  

In some ways, yes.  But each soul is precious.  We can't be cavalier about the welfare of our fellow man.

If I was indifferent to the well-being of my fellow Saints, I would either remain silent or else voice my opinion and then withdraw.  As it is, however, there is a marketplace of ideas in which we are all making "purchases."  I think we need to participate in it.  So I am presenting ideas in that marketplace.  Because I care.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 25, 2017 by smac97

[juliann]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

 

At present, I remain convinced that most of the "hurt" stems not from the policy itself (which has fairly narrow application), but from public backlash and overwrought rhetoric about the policy.  By way of evidence, I point - again - to the remarkable lack of popular "moral indignation" regarding the Church's longstanding and nearly-identical policy as to children from polygamous families.

 

The evidence no one knew about? I learned about the polygamist policy when the Sister's Wives' daughter was refused and even then I never saw it until the gay policy came out and the two were compared online. Few Mormons have polygamists for children, siblings, aunts and uncles, or parents to have had any exposure to that policy. 

Quote

I think the Brethren are looking at this policy issue in a "general law" kind of way, while participants here are looking at this issue in a "I personally know someone who has been adversely affected by this policy, therefore the policy is bad" kind of way.  In other words, I see a lot of "moral indignation" about the policy, but not a lot of leveled, civil, dispassionate reasoning about it.  But I'm in the process of reviewing additional resources, so that assessment may change.

On what basis can you announce how "the Brethren" look at it? Do you think being gay passed over all of their houses so that they don't know anyone personally? And how in the world you can have been a part of this board and not seen hundreds of pages of leveled, civil, dispassionate reasoning baffles me. Does that explain your tone deafness when it comes to the problems this policy is causing and will cause not only individuals but the church itself? 

[Calm]

"The evidence no one knew about? I learned about the polygamist policy when the Sister's Wives' daughter was refused and even then I never saw it until the gay policy came out and the two were compared online. Few Mormons have polygamists for children, siblings, aunts and uncles, or parents to have had any exposure to that policy."

They know about it now or should if they were reading any news about the policy.

In the two years since the new policy came out, have you heard anything initiated to push for children of polygamous parents to be baptized?

Man, I wish I could find that article from the woman who had been given permission, one of the rare ones according to her.  

Edited October 25, 2017 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

I think I’ve said all I want. I’m going to do something pleasant and look at grand baby photos on Instagram. 

[omni]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I think it would be helpful in clear cut situations such as unmarried parents to delay baptism given how I have seen too many baptisms that are done at grandparents' pushing and the kid never shows up except on rare occasions and doesn't even consider themselves Mormon later on.

Where parents have different beliefs, but not practices than church teachings, that would be more case by case imo.

I agree.

[Jeanne]

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I think I’ve said all I want. I’m going to do something pleasant and look at grand baby photos on Instagram. 

There you go...yeah...I am going to have to put a burr in  my kid's butts to get some grandkids!  After all this...your priorities are so right and so true. 

[smac97]

56 minutes ago, juliann said:

The evidence no one knew about?

Plenty of people have known about the Church's policy about children from polygamous families.  And in any event, folks know about it now, and there is still no strident opposition to it.  Virtually none at all, in fact.

Quote

I learned about the polygamist policy when the Sister's Wives' daughter was refused and even then I never saw it until the gay policy came out and the two were compared online. Few Mormons have polygamists for children, siblings, aunts and uncles, or parents to have had any exposure to that policy. 

Which therefore suggests that the strident opposition stems from personal feelings and relationships, not from the policy itself.

I understand that "Few Mormons have polygamists for children, siblings, aunts and uncles, or parents to have had any exposure to that policy."  That is the point I am trying to make.  If the one policy (regarding children in same-sex parental households) is innately problematic, then so is the other (regarding children in polygamous families).  And yet there has not been any hue and cry about this other, much-more-longstanding policy, including from people who have known about it.

That the distinction being drawn between the two policies is based on the personal experiences or lack thereof by members of the Church, that surmises about the policy change are predicated on popular opinion/pressure ("I too am certain this policy will change if for no other reason than Mormons will no longer be welcomed in the national political arena..."), that there is essentially no treatment in view of Pres. Nelson's remarks, or the Church's other explanations about the policy (or worse, I have repeatedly read accusations that Pres. Nelson "went rogue," and can therefore be ignored altogether), and so on all suggests to me that the current vitriol about the newer policy is more a matter of popularity/unpopularity than right/wrong or moral/immoral.

Quote

On what basis can you announce how "the Brethren" look at it?

First, I qualified my statement ("I think...").

Second, I have pointed to their published remarks.  Pres. Nelson's in particular.  He referred to the policy changes as being the product of revelation.  He also stated that the sustaining vote on the policy change was unanimous.  He also explained the efforts the Brethren went through prior to reaching that decision.

Quote

Do you think being gay passed over all of their houses so that they don't know anyone personally?

No.  To the contrary, I think the Brethren are quite "plugged in" to public sentiments on this topic.  

Quote

And how in the world you can have been a part of this board and not seen hundreds of pages of leveled, civil, dispassionate reasoning baffles me.

I was speaking of "leveled, civil, dispassionate reasoning" about the policy changes.

I mean, look at the vitriol in this thread.  I have said nothing to disparage gay people or their children.  None at all.  And yet there is nearly a virtual-mob-mentality in play.  I have asked for reasoned, dispassionate analysis and have been ridiculed for it.  I have explained my position with a fair amount of clarity and have received personal insults for it (from a fellow Latter-day Saint, no less).

So yes, there is a lack of "leveled, civil, dispassionate reasoning."

Quote

Does that explain your tone deafness when it comes to the problems this policy is causing and will cause not only individuals but the church itself? 

We each of us have our different ways of expressing ourselves, and differing levels of willingness to disclose our emotions and personal feelings.  That I seldom post empathetic "I feel your pain" sentiments doesn't mean I don't have them.

I am quite aware of "the problems this policy is causing."  I am also aware that those problems are being greatly exacerbated by the continuous flame-fanning of this topic by critics and opponents.  By way of evidence, I again point to the remarkable lack of controversy about the Church's longstanding policy governing children from polygamous families.  Ignorance of that policy is no longer an excuse.  It has been part of the popular discussion for nearly two years now.  My recollection is that the Church pointed to it in November 2015 as part of its explanation for the newer policy.  And if the Church itself didn't, plenty of others have.  And yet here were are, two years later with crickets chirping away.  Nothing.  No vitriol about the plight of children from polygamous families.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 25, 2017 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, juliann said:

On what basis can you announce how "the Brethren" look at it? Do you think being gay passed over all of their houses so that they don't know anyone personally?

I don't think that. (For one thing, the case of Elder Christofferson's brother has been very well publicized by now).

Which is one of the reasons why I believe the policy was formulated with care, deep thought, due consideration, empathy and wisdom, and ultimately was given divine endorsement.

The result of their deliberations might have been different if they were driven only by personal sentiment or emotion.

[HappyJackWagon]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think we need to care.  They are our brothers and sisters.  We ought to be concerned about their welfare, and that of their families and friends.  Just look at this thread.  There are all sorts of people being affected by "gay issues" who are, at most, tangentially affected by the policy change.

But where people "plant their flags" matters.  And many folks in the Church are facing a cacophony of voices with varied and contradictory input on where to plant.  

I think the voices of prophets and apostles need to be a part of that mix.

But we cannot just wave them off, surely?  They can also change their minds.

In some ways, yes.  But each soul is precious.  We can't be cavalier about the welfare of our fellow man.

If I was indifferent to the well-being of my fellow Saints, I would either remain silent or else voice my opinion and then withdraw.  As it is, however, there is a marketplace of ideas in which we are all making "purchases."  I think we need to participate in it.  So I am presenting ideas in that marketplace.  Because I care.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't often agree with you, but thank you for this thoughtful and loving response.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Having one parent as a believer significantly raises the likelihood of support at home  follow through on covenants made, which was in part what was being discussed iirc, but I may have misinterpreted CV's comments.

Hi Calm, I agree that one parent as a believer significantly raises the likelihood of support at home, and I think bishops take that into consideration in a recommending a child for baptism. 

My comments were about the handbook treatment of apostasy as referring to members who are in a same-gender marriage or practice/advocate plural marriage. These situations differ from the other handbook references (clear, open, deliberate opposition to the Church or leaders; teaching as Church doctrine information that is clearly not; membership in an apostate sect or another church and advocating their teachings -- all of course in a persistent, repeated manner and according to the judgement of the priesthood leader).

I don't know if @jkwilliams is an excommunicated apostate, and if so, what his apostasy refers to, nor do I know whether his children are minors. But the tenor of his statements seems to indicate that the policy does not apply to him or his children.

In that light, the policy differentiates this kind of apostasy (of a parent living in a same-gender relationship) from other forms. It also differentiates the relative standing of any non-member parent living in a same-gender relationship from other forms of behavior and belief antithetical to LDS moral standards. The point of differentiation as I see it has to do with the broken covenant (vis-a-vis the apostate per my earlier posts) and the internally-inconsistent contract (in the case of the nonmember) that these kinds of parents might seek to establish with the Church in behalf of the child while the Church holds to the principle that the child relies first and foremost upon the parents for his maintenance (I take that to be spiritual and temporal).

Simply put, the Church's role is to help parents introduce and reinforce the Gospel in their homes for the benefit of their marriage and children, but she cannot sustain the parents in introducing and reinforcing an antithetical parental and family structure that the children are relying upon for their maintenance. At least with the other apostates and run-of-the-mill sinners, this child maintenance relationship is sufficiently congruent between the Church and the parents, creating room for some kind of relationship, which is still subject to the bishop's recommendation (for example, we have a non-member couple in our ward that is not married but together for 16+ years and have several children aged 6 - 16 who are members of the Church).

I know some might argue that the Church cannot rightly sustain sinful parents in maintaining their children with any kind of sin in the home, but same sex relationships and marriages actually institutionalize the sin and that is where institutions are like oil and water. The differentiation I see is that the Church is in a position to help sinners and repenting apostates raise their children, but cannot help those insistently embroiled in apostate institutions and practices that so clearly undermine the most basic Gospel organization, the family.

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't often agree with you, but thank you for this thoughtful and loving response.

Thanks!

I will again note that I have said nothing to disparage or demean gay people or their children.  I have said nothing that discounts or ignores the pains and difficulties associated with the policy changes.  I acknowledge them.  I feel that I have a fairly firm grasp of the scope and breadth of this issue.

-Smac

 

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I think good moral positions can always be defended clearly and persuasively (with internal consistency), however morality is ultimately subjective, so it's always going to come down to subjective personal values.

Morality is subjective if you leave God out of the equation. Once that happens, then the the White Supremists would be "right" if they succeeded in winning over a majority of the people.

Glenn

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Morality is subjective if you leave God out of the equation. Once that happens, then the the White Supremists would be "right" if they succeeded in winning over a majority of the people.

Glenn

Even leaving God in the equation morality is subjective, from the mortal perspective.  

People who support SSM because they believe that's what God expects of them and people who don't because they believe that's what God expects of them, can both believe they are holding the high moral ground.

[juliann]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

I understand that "Few Mormons have polygamists for children, siblings, aunts and uncles, or parents to have had any exposure to that policy."  That is the point I am trying to make.  If the one policy (regarding children in same-sex parental households) is innately problematic, then so is the other (regarding children in polygamous families).  And yet there has not been any hue and cry about this other, much-more-longstanding policy, including from people who have known about it.

That the distinction being drawn between the two policies is based on the personal experiences or lack thereof by members of the Church, that surmises about the policy change are predicated on popular opinion/pressure ("I too am certain this policy will change if for no other reason than Mormons will no longer be welcomed in the national political arena..."), that there is essentially no treatment in view of Pres. Nelson's remarks, or the Church's other explanations about the policy (or worse, I have repeatedly read accusations that Pres. Nelson "went rogue," and can therefore be ignored altogether), and so on all suggests to me that the current vitriol about the newer policy is more a matter of popularity/unpopularity than right/wrong or moral/immoral.

 

I repeat, few Mormons have had to deal with a polygamist policy. I think it is safe to say that few polygamists are trying to get baptized. And for the record, after the Sister Wives' incident, I feel the same way about the polygamist policy. But there is something else you are not considering, plural marriages are illegal, gay marriages are not. It is not a parallel situation. So I'm calling non sequitur. I could just as easily say that the any members' furor over defending the gay policy is based only on feelings. Why that is supposed to even matter escapes me since even "reason" boils down to a feeling or everyone would be in lockstep. It is the same problem as those who try to present themselves as the unbiased party. It is all very self-serving...and impossible. 

The gay policy breaks down because it hurts children. Good luck finding many who think that a child should be penalized for the sins of the  parents. Not even scripture supports that.

 

[Brother Bear]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Dispassionate" = "free from or unaffected by passion; devoid of personal feeling or bias; impartial; calm"

"Reasoning" = "the process of forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises"

Oh, there are countless examples.

I file an eviction lawsuit in state court.  I present the Court with a copy of the trustee's deed (conveying ownership of the house to my client), and also a copy of the "Notice to Vacate" (a statutory requirement in Utah, see Utah Code Ann. 78B-6-801 et seq.), and an affidavit from the process server who served the Notice to Vacate.  The defendant files an answer.  I file a motion requesting an expedited hearing to determine who is entitled to be in possession of the house (authorized per Utah Code Ann. sec. 78B-6-810).  The court schedules an expedited hearing.  I attend the hearing on behalf of my client, and the defendant appears to represent himself.  I recite the elements for an unlawful detainer claim pursuant to Utah Code Ann. sec. 78B-6-802.5, which are as follows:

I explain to the court that a trustee's sale has occurred, as evidenced by the Trustee's Deed, which was attached to the Complaint as an exhibit, and of which the court can take judicial notice pursuant to Rule 201(b) of the Utah Rules of Evidence.  I also note that the Trustee's Deed is entitled to statutory presumptions in Utah Code Ann. sec. 57-1-28(2)(c) and Utah Code Ann. Sec. 57-4a-4(1)(j), such that the court can immediately conclude, without further inquiry, that my client owns the property.  I also direct the court's attention to the Notice to Vacate and the process server's affidavit, the latter of which creates a prima facie showing that we have complied with the notice requirements of the above statute.  I also note that the Defendant is presently remaining in the property, as evidenced by the fact that . . . he is standing in court intending to argue that he should be entitled to remain in the property (also, he gave the property address as his mailing address when he included it in his answer).  I conclude by arguing to the Court that my client has complied with Utah Code Ann. sec. 78B-6-802.5, that this compliance is demonstrated by the exhibits, by the statutory presumptions associated therewith, and by the defendant's answer.

Then the court allows the defendant to state his position.  The defendant admits that a foreclosure sale took place, and that he has received the notice to quit, but that he wants to re-purchase the property from the bank, that the bank "screwed him over" by not giving him a loan modification, and that his children will be upset if they are forced to move out of their home.

The court then rules as it deems appropriate.  

There you go.  Dispassionate reasoning.  I have been through the foregoing scenario, or slight variations thereof, many dozens of times.  I do not resort to emotional arguments, as compared to the defendant, who complains about the bank "screwing him over" and that his children will be upset, both of which are "emotional" arguments.  Instead, I present the facts as best as I understand them, and the applicable law as best as I understand it.

It is manifestly possible to provide "dispassionate reasoning."  The problem here is that the policy changes under discussion are not being discussed fairly or dispassionately.  They are being treated as presumptively bigoted/hateful, as malicious, as morally wrong, as nonsensical, as ill-conceived.  And the character and integrity and competency of the General Authorities who were involved in formulating of the policy change are being impugned. 

These are emotional and a priori conclusions, not reasoned analysis.

Thanks,

-Smac

As I’ve said previously, reasoning is relative to a framework. The decision to evict someone is arrived at by appealing to a legal framework that seeks to establish what is legally good behavior, legally bad behavior, valid evidence, proper procedure, etc. This framework is the summation of beliefs and values of individuals spanning time and cultures. It’s a codified system of what people believe is right and the results of legal proceedings is what a person or group of people think is the proper application of the framework. Can a decision or argument be “reasonable” within a framework? Sure, why not, but asserting that you are engaging in impassioned (unbiased) reasoning when suing for eviction is, in my opinion, a poor way of describing what you are doing. You are applying your specific interpretation of law to achieve a desired outcome, hoping that those who get to ultimately decide what is reasonable will see it your way. There is nothing unbiased about this process. The entire process is ultimately based on an elaborate system of appeals to authority and popularity.  Which is fine, I just think it's misleadigto assert that there is no bias in it. 

I think the problem is magnified in this thread wherein you are demanding dispassionate, unbiased reasoning you seem to assume that some unbiased framework for reasoning exists. How could you begin to establish a framework that is not based on your personal experience and one that you think is objectively workable between disagreeing parties? Do you really think that there is some objective framework that can standardize what is objectively right or wrong about the church’s policies? If so, what is it? If not, why would you demand that those you disagree with be held to a standard that your own beliefs don’t measure up to?  

I don’t view what you are doing as any different from a “critic” coming in here and telling everyone that they are categorically irrational and deluded for believing in God, the BoM, wanting to follow prophets, etc. You’re both demanding a standard of reasoning that your own beliefs can’t possibly meet and you end up arguing past each other. You agree with the policy. Fine. You share your reasons for agreeing with it. Excellent. Someone disagrees with you and you accuse them of being biased….pot meet kettle. 

[omni]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Funny, isn't it, that virtually nobody is saying anything about that other policy?  So the critics who are presently in hysterics about the children-in-same-sex-households policy are A) embarrassingly ignorant as to longstanding, substantive, and relevant aspects of Church governance, B) supremely indifferent to the welfare of the children in polygamous families, C) cynically exploiting a "Think of the children!"-style effort at manipulating public opinion against the Church, and/or D) some combination of A-C.

Not sure if this was directed at me personally or critics in general, but admittedly I was ignorant of the policy regarding children of polygamous families until the "November Policy" came out, however don't you think "embarrassingly" ignorant is a bit much?  Would you describe a faithful member of your ward as "embarrassingly" ignorant if they too had been unaware of the same policy?

Quote

By the way, is anyone else besides me bemused at the notion of critics and opponents of the Church being concerned about the welfare of children who are not allowed to join the LDS Church until they reach the age of majority?  Since when do they equate the welfare of children with those children joining a church they (the critics/opponents) despise?

I've said this before and will say it again, I don't have a problem with the Church requiring minors without active parents to wait until 18 to be baptized.  In fact, I think as a general rule this would be a good policy to implement.  While I don't have any stats, I imagine the activity rate for individuals in these cases is rather low (yes, I realize there are exceptions).  If their eternal salvation is on the line, why set them up for failure?  

My issue is in the singling out of the children of gay or polygamous parents.  Given the Church's doctrine and history, don't you think these converts are in a difficult enough position without having the added "bonus" of having their parents labeled as apostates and being required to disavow their marriage prior to baptism?

Do you think the policy will strengthen the relationship between these individuals and their parents?  Will it strengthen their relationship with the Church?

Quote

 

Because the repentance process for those parents necessarily requires the destruction of those family units.

The unmarried parents can repent by getting married.  No destruction of the family unit is needed.

The parents can start to believe in God.  No destruction of the family unit is needed.

 

All of these still hold true once the child turns 18, and yet they are allowed to be baptized.  Honestly, I'm not even sure how this is relevant.  It's not like those who were converts as minors are stripped of their membership if their parents never end up getting married or remain atheists.